This is rare and currently we have a diverse mix of electricity production. When wind gets more dominant, it will be offshore and connected to a larger North Sea grid. Then storage will be more important and also more viable.
I'd guess that in ten years the max capacity for wind electrical energy in my region (Northern Germany) is around 2 to 3 times larger than the max demand. Thus large scale storage will be build up.
> we have a diverse mix of electricity production.
Yes, yes we do: coal and biofuel (so more burning), and corn for biofuel is taking up 6% of Germany's land area.
> When wind gets more dominant, it will be offshore and connected to a larger North Sea grid
So, some magical future
> I'd guess that in ten years the max capacity for wind electrical energy in my region (Northern Germany) is around 2 to 3 times larger than the max demand.
Max capacity means nothing when production is low.
> Thus large scale storage will be build up.
More magical thinking (there are currently no grid-scale storage solutions that would've survived just one night from the link I provided)
On what day it happened is independent of how often this happens, for how long, with what demand and the amount of other electricity supplies..
> So, some magical future
A nice slogan you have here. It sounds cute, but essentially it is pessimistic and anti-technology.
We heard this twenty years ago. This year the share of renewable energy for electricity production is 50%. In a decade it will be much higher. The prices for deployment are going down. The cost for nuclear is going up, nuclear projects often have huge cost overruns and are slow to deploy. Example: The 'new' Finnish EPR reactor is 8 billion Euros more expensive than planned (up from 3 billion to 11 billion Euros) and 13 years late. Without government invention the building company from France (Areva) would have been killed - it had to take a 5 billion Euro loss from building the power plant with a fixed-price contract.
> Max capacity means nothing when production is low.
A high max capacity means that it makes sense to invest in storage and backup technology.
> More magical thinking (there are currently no grid-scale storage solutions that would've survived just one night from the link I provided)
We also currently have not the wind dependence. In the future this will change with more offshore wind farms.
That has nothing to do with 'magical thinking', it has to do with investments into technology and the created market conditions. Grid scale in the future means that there will be a large amount of storage options, backup supplies and diverse forms of demand steering.
> On what day it happened is independent of how often this happens, for how long, with what demand and the amount of other electricity supplies..
This was a regular sping night in a nation of 80 million people in the middle of Europe. Which means that for a lot of the rest of Europe it was also a quite night.
> It sounds cute, but essentially it is pessimistic and anti-technology.
No. It's realistic. Every time you show problems with intermittent generation by renewables, the answer is "sometime in unknown future we will surely build enough, and enough grid storage to boot".
> The 'new' finnish reactor is 8 billion Euros more expensive than planned
--- start quote ---
Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average,
Cost overruns are not unique to nuclear. Especially considering how underinvested nuclera has been for the past 20-30 people who keep spreading FUD.
When there's political will, there are results. Fuqing Nuclear Power Plant in China: 6.1 GW nameplate capacity. Built over 14 years at 1 reactor per 6 years. Operational. Estimated cost 16 bln USD.
> We also currently have not the wind dependence. In the future this will change.
I shudder to think about the future where we depend on whether or not the wind will blow at night.
> This was a regular sping night in a nation of 80 million people in the middle of Europe. Which means that for a lot of the rest of Europe it was also a quite night.
Nothing happened. In ten years we have 80% renewable. Again, nothing will happen.
> the answer is "sometime in unknown future we will surely build enough, and enough grid storage to boot".
Look at a nuclear power plant. If one starts building today, the reactor could be ready in 5, 10 or twenty years. In Finnland the EPR was 13 years late.
Renewable can be deployed much faster and more reliable.
> Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average,
The new Finnish reactor was 3.6 times more expensive than planned. That's a much larger price increase.
> When there's political will,
of a dictatorship
> there are results. Fuqing Nuclear Power Plant in China: 6.1 GW nameplate capacity. Built over 14 years at 1 reactor per 6 years. Operational. Estimated cost 16 bln USD.
Try to do the same in Western Europe...
Btw, China deploys two large coal power plant blocks every week. -> to quote you: "When there's political will, there are results."
I'd guess that in ten years the max capacity for wind electrical energy in my region (Northern Germany) is around 2 to 3 times larger than the max demand. Thus large scale storage will be build up.